a new way forward, or does it merely provide a more nuanced reading of Marx that captures the current market zeitgeist concerning environmentalism – thereby gaining himself a new audience but opening himself to criticism that he is yet but another apologist for Marx
that wants to change the focus but not the fundamental means of production, becoming in effect nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Even more to the point is: how do Piketty and Saito's proposals help us better understand the Internet and other tech companies, which through their explosion of growth and profit over the past couple of decades come to epitomize post-industrial capitalism? These are companies, after all, that not only harm the environment through the mining of the rare minerals required of computer chips and/or batteries but openly view their users as commodities possessed of valuable information (data) over which the companies obtain the rights to ownership and which they mine – oftentimes 24/7 – through increasingly sophisticated algorithms that drive further engagement regardless of whether the individual is at work or at rest without ever paying a wage or fee for the profits derived. Moreover, these are companies that look to further capitalize on the business model of technology investments – like the metaverse – that extend beyond the constraints of our existing universe to alternative universes, where these companies can expand the world
of profit making through yet more data being mined from fantastically created environments in which people can exist as avatars or take on
new personalities as alternative selves to buy fantastical goods or engage in fantastical acts that reveal extremely valuable drivers of human behavior more generally and their personal
behavior more specifically.
With people asking such questions and proposing such responses, the fact of the matter is: Marx clearly remains relevant today. But are such proposals – coming from a socialist and an avowed Marxist – indicative of what Marx had or would propose, as they seem to skirt the issue of how capitalism arises and what that says about individual identity.
For this reason, it might be more responsible to revisit Marx’s own thinking and words on the subject – most specifically, his understanding of what defines and constitutes work and labor. It is work and labor – and the distinction between the two – that serves to form individual identity and the impetus for capitalism’s rise. It also reveals what is to be “valued” and what “value” itself means, from which it becomes possible both to assess the moral foundation of capitalism and to address if not understand what constitutes “meaning” and “meaningful” actions in today’s world.
Marx and the “Materialist” Dialectic
From the very beginning, Marx set forth what he believed was an “ideal” social and economic
system that empowered human beings. Writing in The German Ideology, Marx stated:
Marx thought the ideal society was one in which identify was forged through men’s actions and not the labels assigned to them. One can, for example, hunt without being labeled a hunter, fish without being labeled a fisherman, raise cattle without being labeled a cattleman, criticize without be labeled a critic.
12